holding that a statute requiring individuals to orally report suspected child abuse and neglect did not create a private cause of action because, even though the reporting requirement individually benefitted potential victims of child abuse and neglect, “there [was] no apparent intent to authorize a civil action for failure of an individual to make the oral report”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a statute requiring individuals to orally report suspected child abuse and neglect did not create a private cause of action because, even though the reporting requirement individually benefitted potential victims of child abuse and neglect, “there [was] no apparent intent to authorize a civil action for failure of an individual to make the oral report”
- holding that child abuse reporting statutes do not create a private right of action for failure to report abuse
- “[I]f Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1506-CT-682 | May 26, 2016 Page 15 of 18 it appears that the duty imposed is merely for the benefit of the public, and the fine or penalty a means of enforcing the duty and punishing a breach thereof, the fine or penalty is exclusive, and a private action cannot be maintained for injury by reason of the breach.” (quotation omitted)
- “The legislative purpose relative to reports by members of the public is stated as one to encourage effective reporting.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion too broadly interprets the holding in Peavler v. Monroe Cty,. Bd. of Com'rs (1988), Ind., 528 N.E.2d 40 . While our Supreme Court rejected the traditional ministerial/discretionary test to determine governmental immunity in favor of the planning/operational test, it does not necessarily follow that West's actions were not the result of a conscious balancing of risks and weighing of priorities.
The Court enumerated factors to consider which would normally indicate a finding of immunity. One of the factors regarding the nature of the conduct seems applicable here: "[wlhether the conduct involved the balancing of factors without reliance on a readily ascertainable rule or standard." West's actions could fall into this category. Further, historically the same type of teacher function decision making has been found to be immune. See Driscol et al. v. Delphi School Corp. (1972), 155 Ind.App. 56 , 290 N.E.2d 769 . It is not apparent that the Peavier decision would alter that finding.
Also, the test announced in Peavier may suffer from an infirmity similar to that inherent in the former test; that is, the difficulty in determining at what level of policy making does the division between planning and operation commence. It is not inconceivable that West's actions were or were based upon some level of policy making.
For the reasons above I would vote to affirm the trial court.